list_checksList every check in the rule set with its pillar, weight and question. Use when the user asks what is measured rather than how one site performs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pillars | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a completeness guarantee with 'every check.' However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or output format, though the output schema may cover some of this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The action and result content are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage signal. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the fields included, and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey beyond the empty input schema. The description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter details, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every check in the rule set with its pillar, weight and question.' It clearly states the tool's scope and the content of the result, making it distinguishable from siblings like score_site and explain_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use when the user asks what is measured rather than how one site performs,' giving clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not name sibling tools directly, so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct action: scoring a site, listing checks, explaining a single check, fetching badge HTML, and setting up monitoring. The descriptions include explicit usage guidance that removes any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: explain_check, get_badge_embed, list_checks, score_site, watch_site. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused agent-readiness scoring service. Each tool contributes a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core workflow: score, understand checks, explain findings, get a badge, and monitor a site. A minor gap is lack of a way to cancel or remove an active watch.